Did Yahshua and his Disciples Abstain from Meat?

[HARK!]

@HARK! another scripture to consider... Peter’s vision.

Peter told God “I’ve never eaten anything common or unclean”. He didn’t say “I’ve never eaten any animal”...

This would indicate that he had indeed eaten meat.

Good Point. You've been very helpful at piling up the evidence on the other side of this issue.

 

[HARK!]

It is the last meal (literally a last supper) before the fast of the firstborn from sunrise to sunset on the 14th.

Not according to the link that I posted. Do you have a more reliable source?

 

[ewq1938]

No, it is only regarding gentiles...

He wasn't told to eat gentiles. "Peter; kill, and eat"

There is no mention of them all having a pig roast...

And nothing forbidding it either.

 

[ewq1938]

Nope. It either was a Passover meal or it was not a Passover meal.

Scripture says it was a Passover meal.

Mar_14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

You cannot argue that it was conducted in a way that a Passover meal is conducted, except that it was substantially different and omitted a number of elements that are part of a Passover meal.

I don't see any evidence that anything was missing.

 

[Albion]

Scripture says it was a Passover meal.

Not only did none of the verses that were suggested earlier in this thread indicate that, but neither does the one you cited here.

It takes more than the word "Passover" appearing in any verse for it to indicate to us that the meal the Lord and his Apostles actually ate was a Passover meal.

 

[ewq1938]

It takes more than the word "Passover" appearing in any verse for it to indicate to us that the meal the Lord and his Apostles actually ate was a Passover meal.

That is quite incorrect. Killing the Passover and eating the Passover the first day of unleavened bread proves it was the Passover meal. If people ate a Thanksgiving meal on Nov 26th, will you say "It takes more than the word "Thanksgiving" for it to indicate to us that the meal eaten was a Thanksgiving meal."?

 

[Al Touthentop]

No, it is only regarding gentiles...

"You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean"

There is no mention of them all having a pig roast...

Except we know that after this, Peter ate "unclean" animals because he took the lesson to heart (mostly) as also we should. The old law was abolished and Christ not only purifies us but he nailed the old law to the cross.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not according to the link that I posted. Do you have a more reliable source?

You have ONE link regarding ONE instance. They are also done for other feasts like Yom Kippur.

Erev (Night Of) Yom Kippur | My Jewish Learning

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Except we know that after this, Peter ate "unclean" animals because he took the lesson to heart (mostly) as also we should. The old law was abolished and Christ not only purifies us but he nailed the old law to the cross.

Scripture?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Scripture says it was a Passover meal.

Mar_14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

I don't see any evidence that anything was missing.

If you call the entire feast "Passover" then they are speaking of the 14th (beginning AFTER sunset of the 13th). This is Passover, when the lambs were killed. They were killed at the Temple during the daylight hours of the 14th (between the evenings). The next day, the 15th (which begins AFTER sunset of the 14th) is the Passover meal as well as the first day of unleavened bread. So IF they were at the Passover feast, why did they say "some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, “Buy those things we need for the feast"?? Buying and selling was forbidden then.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

He wasn't told to eat gentiles. "Peter; kill, and eat"
And nothing forbidding it either.

Now you are just being silly. It says: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean"

 

[prodromos]

This short video provides some evidence to support that possibility. I have been researching this subject; and I have found much more evidence than this video presents. Some of the arguments that I have reviewed are weak; but even the weak arguments, could be valid arguments. I have found some flawed evidence in this video; but so far, as I have seen this evidence is only flawed by semantics. Again, this video is just a brief overview of this subject. I'm left torn between observing the Moedim according to the tradition of the Torah, or from following the message of the Prophets, Yahshua, and his disciples. I look forward to those in this community who are interested in seeking out the truth in this matter.

Anything that has a backbone is considered as meat in the Orthodox Church, and we know that Jesus cooked fish for His disciples. John 21:9-12

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Anything that has a backbone is considered as meat in the Orthodox Church, and we know that Jesus cooked fish for His disciples. John 21:9-12

Also the Mishnah says:
"A paschal lamb is invalid if it was slaughtered for those who will not eat it"

 

[Albion]

That is quite incorrect. Killing the Passover and eating the Passover the first day of unleavened bread proves it was the Passover meal.

I'm sure that nothing will convince you, but the argument that they had to have observed a Passover meal although the evidence is that they did not do so cannot not hold up to scrutiny.

Not only are the required elements of a Passover meal missing, and we have the Gospel quoting Christ as he introduces elements into their meal that night which are NOT part of a Passover meal, but it was not unlike Christ to do this kind of thing anyway!

The institution of the Lord's Supper, as we call it, was not the only case of him taking an existing ceremony or practice from the Hebrew religion and remaking it. Consider, for example, how Christ took water baptism, which was well known among the Hebrews prior to Christ, and used it to institute the Christian sacrament.

He had John baptize him in the same way that John had baptized many others before...but Jesus gave it a new meaning. Existing observance remade. See?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Scripture?

Seriously?


Galatians 2
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Earlier he says that Peter ate with the Gentiles. He ate with these formerly unclean people and their unclean food categorized as such under the old law.

And what did Paul understand about the old law? That it was dead.

Colossians 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

As he also explains in Hebrews, going back to the law also means sacrificing animals for sin remission and that is actually an insult against Jesus who made the ultimate sacrifice "once for all."

You can't go back to the law of Moses and just satisfy some of its requirements. You would theoretically have to obey ALL of its requirements. Though after AD 70 it is impossible to obey that law since there is no more a Levitical priesthood and there isn't a temple for offering those sacrifices.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Seriously?

Galatians 2
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Earlier he says that Peter ate with the Gentiles. He ate with these formerly unclean people and their unclean food categorized as such under the old law.

And what did Paul understand about the old law? That it was dead.

Colossians 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

As he also explains in Hebrews, going back to the law also means sacrificing animals for sin remission and that is actually an insult against Jesus who made the ultimate sacrifice "once for all."

You can't go back to the law of Moses and just satisfy some of its requirements. You would theoretically have to obey ALL of its requirements. Though after AD 70 it is impossible to obey that law since there is no more a Levitical priesthood and there isn't a temple for offering those sacrifices.

I don't know where you get this stuff from! It is so twisted I don't know where to start! BTW, Torah was kept AFTER the destruction of the first Temple so your theory is moot. No one, not even Yeshua, can keep or obey ALL its requirements. You are just showing me that you have a complete misunderstanding of scripture and Torah...

What was against us was the CURSE of the Law, through Yeshua, THAT was what was taken away.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I don't know here you get this stuff from! It is so twisted I don't know where to start! BTW, Torah was kept AFTER the destruction of the first Temple so your theory is moot. No one, not even Yeshua, can keep or obey ALL its requirements. You are just showing me that you have a complete misunderstanding of scripture and Torah...

What was against us was the CURSE of the Law, through Yeshua, THAT was what was taken away.

The scripture is twisted you say. The Torah was not kept after Christ. There are commands under Christ's law which were also in the old law. But we do not obey the Torah, we obey 'the perfect law of liberty.'

The fact that murder is outlawed under Christ's law (in fact his command 'binds' murder to hatred) does not mean we are keeping the Torah when we obey that command. The old law was nailed to the cross just as Paul wrote. Your response is to call Paul twisted. I didn't write the New Testament. You can't obey the Torah. For one, it has more than one covenant and they have all been fulfilled in Christ.

If you were to obey the Torah you'd have to decide which part. The law of Moses made a division of clean and unclean animals which was not in effect after the flood. So which do you chose to obey?

But there are no Levitical priests nor is there any longer an earthly tabernacle or altar to offer sacrifices on. It is impossible to go back to the law of Moses, even if you wanted to.

 

[HARK!]

You have ONE link regarding ONE instance. They are also done for other feasts like Yom Kippur.

Erev (Night Of) Yom Kippur | My Jewish Learning

Interesting.

 

[HARK!]

The Torah was not kept after Christ.

King James Version
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

 

[Al Touthentop]

King James Version
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

Which we know was not because he was trying to obey the Torah but to keep to what the Holy Spirit had directed him to do. He taught that the old law was abolished. You can't use this in an attempt to nullify his teaching on that. Shame on you for using the scriptures against themselves.